Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[stevenho]

-snip-

We were talking about aiming for 0 deaths.
Try again.

- - - Updated - - -

Vaccine by June? Looks promising

Another stone tossed down the road that we, in hope, follow. (Wonder if anyone gets the reference)

The number of vaccine "news" is so large and so meaningless that I stopped reading them completely.
Just waiting for an announcement of a working one.
Hope it doesnt take as long as HIV or SARS vaccines.

[Granyala]

What is the number we can afford that you propose?

I would say, a sensible number would be the maximum number right before your healthcare systems are overtaxed and thus start generating unnecessary deaths.
In other words: we can and must afford the unavoidable deaths but should prevent any avoidable ones from occurring.

That was the point of the lockdowns. Prevent unnecessary deaths due to a clogged healthcare system.
Not just COVID-19 deaths, mind you. If health care is taxed over capacity, a simple car crash might suddenly be lethal because no ICUs are available.

[xenogear3]

The lockdown is not decided by the WoW players or MMO champion forum posters.
It is decided by Politicians.

Trump pushed for re-open on Easter and May 1st.
Both failed.

All politicians talk about re-open, but act differently.
No one wants to take the blame.

In other words, when you are in charge, you are afraid.

[Forogil]

And near as I can tell, that 25% number is pretty bad science, too. They're estimating that about 25% of people in Stockholm have been exposed to the virus - they're basing this on a study of Stockholm hospitals (unclear on whether this was a single hospital or multiple hospitals) that found that about 25% of staff had antibodies.

The article stated that it was based on another test as well; a randomized serological tests (i.e. the good kind).

There have also been earlier tests - https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus...s_testing_all/ (3 weeks ago, 7% of women giving birth at one hospital were infected).

[Acidbaron]

Vaccine by June? Looks promising

Another stone tossed down the road that we, in hope, follow. (Wonder if anyone gets the reference)

I believe they mean they could have one that is efficient by June, would still take quite some time longer to manufacture and distribute and also from the same article that doesn't even mean it is ready by a long shot, it means that is ready for safety trials.

Someone else recently linked i believe it as a NYT article that laid out the full time line, i really would not hope on getting one before 2021.

So tsk, tsk quite the misleading message you present there as no vaccine will be ready by June.

[Skulltaker]

What's pathetic is advertising locking down countries and aiming to achieve 0 deaths.
Although I feel like "laughable" would be a better adjective.

That's what medicine always aims for. But you wouldn't know about that, sub-par seems to be good enough for you. Really hope you don't have kids, you'd make a terrible parent.

- - - Updated - - -

Having 0 deaths is pratically impossible. What the fuck are you trying to argue?

Since he lacks the education or cognitive capacity to make a reasonable argument, he tries to lead it ad absurdum. It's what people who are out of their depth always do. Just leave him be, he's harmless.

[stevenho]

I would say, a sensible number would be the maximum number right before your healthcare systems are overtaxed and thus start generating unnecessary deaths.
In other words: we can and must afford the unavoidable deaths but should prevent any avoidable ones from occurring.

That was the point of the lockdowns. Prevent unnecessary deaths due to a clogged healthcare system.
Not just COVID-19 deaths, mind you. If health care is taxed over capacity, a simple car crash might suddenly be lethal because no ICUs are available.

Sounds good to me.
Where do I sign?

- - - Updated - - -

Having 0 deaths is pratically impossible. What the fuck are you trying to argue?

Read a couple of quotes back before you comment, you'll make more sense that way.

[dribbles]

The problem with your math is that most population hasn't been infected...yet.

So lets toy with math, since you seem to enjoy it

The UK has 67,886,004 people according with wikipedia, in the first exercise i will calculate the 70% herd imunity

67,886,004*0.7 = 47 520 202 people infected

The second exercise i will calculate the 5% critical people

47 520 202*0.05 = 2 376 010 people in critical situation

The third exercise i will be calculating the death toll with the supposed 1%

47 520 202*0.01 = 475 202 people dead.

Question, can your country afford this?

My calculations use absolute knowns yours, with respect, absolute unknowns.

How do you know 70% will get infected now the virus is on its last legs? Same for the 5% critical people and 1% death toll. Those % are plucked out of thin air.

And 475000 total UK deaths is just ridiculous. No one sensible is predicting that.

How many people have starved because of lockdowns so far? Can you point to the masses of dead people?

They won't be counted as deaths from starvation will they. In the same way no one dies of old age any more - always corona is the cause of death, the same will be for starvation. How long before they start pinching from Cancer deaths to inflate the Covid-19 figures is anyones guess. Surprised it hasn't been done already, probably has.

However as you ask...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...navirus-latest

TENSIONS in Italy have triggered a furious response from citizens who fear mass starvation. Another piece of footage showed a fight breaking out in a supermarket after a customer refused to pay for his shopping, insisting he "had not money but still had to eat".

[Tuor]

i really would not hope on getting one before 2012.

Hello, i'm typing from 2020 just to warn you... We have coronavirus, stay away...

Sorry i had to make a joke with that typo .

[stevenho]

Since he lacks the education or cognitive capacity to make a reasonable argument, he tries to lead it ad absurdum. It's what people who are out of their depth always do. Just leave him be, he's harmless.

Here we go with the ad personams, how unexpected
If only there were countries on earth that proved all the fearmongers wrong... if only..
heh

[PhaelixWW]

The question is not only whether people feel that they cannot go to the store since they are to sick to shop, but also that they feel that they are bit sick (slight headache, a bit of fever before taking some medicine etc) and shouldn't go to the store since that may infect others.

Uh, that's what I mean by "too sick to consider going to the store". Some people are still going to go even if they have slight symptoms, however. The amount of people who experience even a fever is low, percentage-wise. The amount of people who experience a fever but haven't tested positive is lower still.

Thus the question is whether mildly symptomatic cases - who are not getting tested based on the numbers - do the right thing or not.

In many cases, it's not even about choosing to do the right thing or not. Many people live alone, and in the absence of severe symptoms or a positive test, they'll be forced to go shopping regardless of how they feel. And in multiple-person households, if one person is shopping for another who feels too sick to risk infecting others, the person who is going is much more likely to already be infected by the person they live with, anyway.

Again, this method of study isn't perfect (but which one is, honestly), yet it's designed to be much more accurate than those with an obvious participation bias. I mean, if it makes you feel better, you can drop my estimated 1.4% down to 1.2%, which is a huge drop, and it doesn't really change the relevant conclusions.

And illustrated with patients in the corridors, which doesn't instill confidence.

And yet there are stories of additional facilities going underused, temporary workers being released as far back as three weeks ago, etc. These reports must be counterbalanced. The situation in New York was bad, very bad. But I don't see more concrete evidence of the kind of overrun that would result in significant amounts of avoidable death.

Can you find such reports?

- - - Updated - - -

We were talking about aiming for 0 deaths.
Try again.

No, actually, that's just your goalpost move. Nobody besides you is talking about aiming for 0 deaths.

I'm not surprised that you're making up strawmen now, though.

[Secret Arcade]

And near as I can tell, that 25% number is pretty bad science, too. They're estimating that about 25% of people in Stockholm have been exposed to the virus - they're basing this on a study of Stockholm hospitals (unclear on whether this was a single hospital or multiple hospitals) that found that about 25% of staff had antibodies. So basically, they believe 25% of Stockholm is immune because of A) antibody tests that are still giving higher-than-average false positives B) administered to people who have been exposed to the virus to a degree many times greater than the average Stockholm resident.

Testing the hospital staff is only one part of it. The other part is random testing of Stockholm citizens and mathematical modelling based on those numbers.
It was also two different kinds of tests. This was all in the article.

Working with these two sets of numbers combined, and possibly, maybe even probably, other sources of data, have led them to a conclusion. Nothing less.

Even so, reducing a short, simplified, soundbite in an interview to "bad science" is a bit of a reach, even if you had actually read it properly.
I mean, what does a WHO advisor and former state epidemiologist as well as former chief scientist at the ECDC, know about science...

[Forogil]

SARS-CoV-2, on the other hand, has an estimated R0 of 2-4. Nothing is going to slow it down to below 1 short of extreme measures.

Google "R below 1 Sweden"

https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus...weden_may_1st/
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/...ion-number.pdf

So Sweden seem to have R below 1. Have Sweden implemented extreme measures?

I'm not stating that the same measures would be effective in all countries, and especially not that "no lockdown as in Sweden" is an effective formula.

[Tuor]

My calculations use absolute knowns yours, with respect, absolute unknowns.

How do you know 70% will get infected now the virus is on its last legs?

Not me, that is what the scientists claim, they claiming the herd imunity to be 70%, and the virus is suposed to keep comming back, wave after wave until the virus finally disapears because he no longer be able to infect more people.

Same for the 5% critical people and 1% death toll. Those % are plucked out of thin air.

Well you used worldometers data in your previously math, why don't you go there and check for your self... Just to warn you, the death toll calculated by worldometers is not 1%, but over 3%. I used 1% because i tried to include the asymptomatic people.

And 475000 total UK deaths is just ridiculous. No one sensible is predicting that.

That is the problem of math, its just a language, you can say whatever you wish with it. But my math its still correct, i just didn't calculated the risk groups.

[Forogil]

Uh, that's what I mean by "too sick to consider going to the store". Some people are still going to go even if they have slight symptoms, however. The amount of people who experience even a fever is low, percentage-wise. The amount of people who experience a fever but haven't tested positive is lower still.

Doubtful, and I believe we will have better data in the next months or so - so no need to discuss it now.

In many cases, it's not even about choosing to do the right thing or not. Many people live alone, and in the absence of severe symptoms or a positive test, they'll be forced to go shopping regardless of how they feel.

Unless grocery stores do home deliveries, or they have friendly neighbours that can shop for them.

And yet there are stories of additional facilities going underused, temporary workers being released as far back as three weeks ago, etc. These reports must be counterbalanced. The situation in New York was bad, very bad. But I don't see more concrete evidence of the kind of overrun that would result in significant amounts of avoidable death.

All of that indicates lack of planning, and there is likely more to it. Proper planning for covid-19 shouldn't start when hospitals are overwhelmed, but months before that.

E.g., previously the hospital ship was described as not being intended for covid-19, but to off-load other patients. Now it is described as not being used for covid-19 - as if that was the intention. For the staff it's likely that they started recruiting so late that the worst had already passed when the new staff could be used (you need to have the idea, get someone to sign off on it, advertise it, screen them, get them there, orient them).

[PhaelixWW]

How do you know 70% will get infected now the virus is on its last legs?

Why on earth do you assume that the virus is "on its last legs"? Talk about embarrassing assumptions, indeed.

They won't be counted as deaths from starvation will they. In the same way no one dies of old age any more - always corona is the cause of death, the same will be for starvation. How long before they start pinching from Cancer deaths to inflate the Covid-19 figures is anyones guess. Surprised it hasn't been done already, probably has.

How pathetic. Nobody's dying of starvation, and no starvation death would be called a COVID-19 death. And "old age" is not, as has never been, a medical diagnosis for death. Yet people have absolutely been dying of "normal" old-age causes, like cancer, IHD, Alzheimers, etc. and not being counted as COVID-19 deaths, also.

However as you ask...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...navirus-latest

TENSIONS in Italy have triggered a furious response from citizens who fear mass starvation. Another piece of footage showed a fight breaking out in a supermarket after a customer refused to pay for his shopping, insisting he "had not money but still had to eat".

Lolwut? Some people fighting over shopping in Italy does not equate to actual starvation.

People were fighting over toilet paper, too. I guess that means people must have been dying from diarrhea, then?

[Shadowferal]

So tsk, tsk quite the misleading message you present there as no vaccine will be ready by June.

That's why I said "another stone.."
Oh never mind...

[Sunseeker]

Sounds good to me.
Where do I sign?

It's easy to talk about how you'd die for your country when everyone is doing their best to ensure that you don't.

[breadisfunny]

That's what medicine always aims for. But you wouldn't know about that, sub-par seems to be good enough for you. Really hope you don't have kids, you'd make a terrible parent.

- - - Updated - - -



Since he lacks the education or cognitive capacity to make a reasonable argument, he tries to lead it ad absurdum. It's what people who are out of their depth always do. Just leave him be, he's harmless.

what is your take on shadowferal's article?

[Forogil]

How pathetic. Nobody's dying of starvation, and no starvation death would be called a COVID-19 death. And "old age" is not, as has never been, a medical diagnosis for death.

To be clear: (Almost) nobody is dying of starvation in Europe and N. America due to this.

However, I doubt that it is the case in India and other countries without functioning safety nets for their large urban populations:

https://scroll.in/article/960678/pak...ty-uncle-genre
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/indi....1586956637547

Obviously a badly implemented lockdown in India causing a number of deaths doesn't imply that lockdowns in other countries are as problematic.